Orthodox Darwinist is a term I come up with – you may disagree with my term, nevertheless it is part of reality. My position is Orthodox Darwinist (basically close-minded, rigid thinking, know-it-alls) seem to believe evolution as the main principle of cosmology explains it all and there is scientific evidence to back it all up. The reality is there is only scientific evidence to support a teeny tiny part of any cosmological theory. While you are free to disagree with my opinion – my opinion is part of reality therefore you have failed to support your position.
In the above statement you actually imply you are in a position to speak for the “real world” (which is absolutely ludicrous – you can speak for YOURSELF and that is all) – you are an extremely arrogant know-it-all.
I think "evolution as cosmology" means nothing to anyone but you.
Once again the arrogant know-it-all speaks for EVERYBODY – how the hell he thinks he can know what EVERYBODY but me is thinking is beyond reason.
I am not surprised that you don’t understand being you claim evolution has nothing to do with cosmology – despite the plethora of evidence provided. Evolution is the KEY principle of most cosmological theories. I will explain this for the 100th time(Actually I don’t really know if it is the 100th time): I used the term “evolution as cosmology” to differential between that and “religion as cosmology” - if you want to argue the term is awkward, fine you are correct. But if you want to argue the term is meaningless you are just demonstrating your ignorance. I come to cosmology from the philosophy side – it seems you have not studied philosophy and because you are a know-it-all, if the approach to a subject is different from what you understand – you pretend it is wrong or meaningless (Know-it-all 101).
Evolution as we know it, is usually meant to be biologic, and does not, will not, and can not address the big bang. You should really know this by now.
What a stupid statement.
1. Nobody EVER claimed the Big Bang had anything to do with evolution (Intellectual dishonesty)
2. Only you assume evolution means biological evolution (HINT: the word and concept of evolution existed before Darwinism
3. You are a know-it-all that thinks he can speak for everybody - the REALITY is you can only speak for yourself
4. Evolution is a concept – biological evolution is merely ONE example of evolution – assuming evolutions mean biological is like assuming automobile means Mini Cooper.
But it meant something different, then, now didn't it? Or maybe you aren't aware of this.
The word "evolution" comes from a latin word, "evolvere," meaning "unrolling," as in "the unrolling of a scroll." In line with this etymology "evolution" carried a sense of the unfolding or unfurling of what already existed in fact or in programmatic potential.
Prior to Darwin the common scientific and biological usage of the term was with respect to the growth and development of organisms, for instance in embryology. Indeed this is the way Darwin himself most commonly used the term.
Others came to use "evolution" (or "development") to refer to the "transmutation" of species and to common descent, but Darwin long resisted this precisely because the sense of "unrolling" was contrary to his own view of evolution as a process resulting from variation and selection operating among the vicissitudes of reproductive competition.
Admittely the term "evolution" had been used, before Darwin, by Lammark to describe his own theory, but this was more appropriate. Lammark's theory was very different from Darwin's in certain respects, and Lammark did indeed envision that evolution followed a programmatic development, being channeled necessarily along the course of a universal "scale of being".
The point I'm getting at here is that the sense of the term "evolution" is different when referring to cosmic versus biological evolution. With respect to the former, evolution retains much of the orginal sense of "unrolling," since we dealing with the realm of universal, physical laws, whose effects are typically mathematically predictable. In the case of biological evolution we are dealing, to a much greater extent, with processes (such as natural selection) that are not predictable as to their specific results.
Your implication that the term evolution carries the same sense in both cases (the evolution of the universe according to physical law, and the origin of species according to random variation and environmentally driven selection) commits the fallacy of equivocation.